And if you read my post above in starting strength Mark Rippetoe goes into major detail on how the core works harder during back squats. All you're talking is taking much of the core and posterior chain (both are important) out of the situation.

And if you read my post above in starting strength Mark Rippetoe goes into major detail on how the core works harder during back squats. All you're talking is taking much of the core and posterior chain (both are important) out of the situation.

Exactly - more posterior chain activation (which I've already told you you were right about) occurs, spreading the load over a larger number of motor units.

That is exactly why you can back squat more, but that doesn't mean the core individually is working harder.

Will your core gain strength from back squatting? Absolutely. But take a guy with a 400+ back squat who's never front squatted and have him front squat 135 (or less if need be) for 5x5. His abs will feel it.

Exactly - more posterior chain activation (which I've already told you you were right about) occurs, spreading the load over a larger number of motor units.

That is exactly why you can back squat more, but that doesn't mean the core individually is working harder.

Will your core gain strength from back squatting? Absolutely. But take a guy with a 400+ back squat who's never front squatted and have him front squat 135 (or less if need be) for 5x5. His abs will feel it.

Likewise. Take a guy that is used to front squatting 135 and put 405 lbs on his back and see if he can withstand the same time under tension with that resistance as the guy back squatting.

The core muscles are not just the abs; they are also the lower back muscles which contract significantly harder with back squats than front squats.

Likewise. Take a guy that is used to front squatting 135 and put 405 lbs on his back and see if he can withstand the same time under tension with that resistance as the guy back squatting.

The core muscles are not just the abs; they are also the lower back muscles which contract significantly harder with back squats than front squats.

LOL?! Are you serious?! If a guy can only front squat 135, how in the hell do you expect him to lift 405 for anything?! That's ridiculous!

You don't think a guy who can back squat 400 but only front squat 135 has a muscle imbalance that needs to be redressed? I do! And that imbalance would be where? In the core! Because you have to stabilize that whole front half of your core (as you state, the core is both up front and in back), which you are unaccustomed to using so much, in order to keep your torso as upright as possible.

And yes, the "back" of the core is worked harder on "back" squats, but the "front" of the core is worked harder on "front squats." And both are equally important.

LOL?! Are you serious?! If a guy can only front squat 135, how in the hell do you expect him to lift 405 for anything?! That's ridiculous!

You don't think a guy who can back squat 400 but only front squat 135 has a muscle imbalance that needs to be redressed? I do! And that imbalance would be where? In the core! Because you have to stabilize that whole front half of your core (as you state, the core is both up front and in back), which you are unaccustomed to using so much, in order to keep your torso as upright as possible.

And yes, the "back" of the core is worked harder on "back" squats, but the "front" of the core is worked harder on "front squats." And both are equally important.

You misread my post.

I said see how long he can keep under the bar; how long his core could support it. A guy that back squats 405 can easily stay under the bar of a front squat (isometrically) longer than a guy that front squats 135 can stay under the bar with a 405 lb back squat. And as far as core imbalance goes, I used an example contrary to yours.

You are looking at pound for pound measurements of strength. Of course a 405 lb front squat will require more stabilize maturity than a 405 lb back squat, but if the weights used is in proper alignment the back squat will demand more stabilize use (from the core) because your body works harder to stabilize heavier loads.

And the torso is upright during high bar squats, as they are with front squats which would contract the the front of the core much harder. According to the all or none principle all fibers from the front of the core must contract with a back squat. Your body will work harder to support heavier weight over your center of gravity - with back squats.

Anyway, front squats are not a suitable replacement for back squats for a few reasons. Namely, the overactive hip flexors and understimulated hip extensors can cause lordosis.

I said see how long he can keep under the bar; how long his core could support it. A guy that back squats 405 can easily stay under the bar of a front squat (isometrically) longer than a guy that front squats 135 can stay under the bar with a 405 lb back squat. And as far as core imbalance goes, I used an example contrary to yours.

You are looking at pound for pound measurements of strength. Of course a 405 lb front squat will require more stabilize maturity than a 405 lb back squat, but if the weights used is in proper alignment the back squat will demand more stabilize use (from the core) because your body works harder to stabilize heavier loads.

And the torso is upright during high bar squats, as they are with front squats which would contract the the front of the core much harder. According to the all or none principle all fibers from the front of the core must contract with a back squat. Your body will work harder to support heavier weight over your center of gravity - with back squats.

Anyway, front squats are not a suitable replacement for back squats for a few reasons. Namely, the overactive hip flexors and understimulated hip extensors can cause lordosis.

What I have bolded was entirely my point. Pound for pound, front squats are harder on the core than back squats. That's all I was trying to say. Thanks!

I think we are missing the purpose of my statement. He has back pain from doing squats. We all pretty much agree universally that it is most likely from poor form. My suggestion for him to switch to front squats has a couple points to it. It will force him to follow a more proper form. There is a good chance that he is using his back to leverage the weight up, as in leaning too far forward and using his back while coming up rather than keep his spine inline and using his hams/glutes and driving his hips forward to lift the weight. With the front squat you have less room for error like that. If you do, you'll lose the bar off the front. It will also allow him to keep squatting and give his back some rest, hopefully allowing it to recovery healthily. The front squat is a great tool to teach form with. However, we all probably agree that to only do front squats is not what is being said.

You have more weight over your body doing back squats, which causes the core to work harder. And yes, please provide me a link with Rippetoe saying front squats are harder on the core.

And there's no way front squats work the posterior chain to any reasonable degree. Your posterior chain is worked because you are breaking parallel and using hip extension. You cannot use hip extension during a front squat and you cannot drive weight up using your hips.

Front squats are quad dominant.

Rippetoe goes into some detail on the subject on pages 223-230 of the 2nd Edition of starting strength.

Key points:

-Hamstrings are already shortened & the positioning of the bar makes it impossible to use hip drive as a cue.
-The body is kept as vertical as possible, in comparison to the back squat where some amount of forward lean is desired
-More core stabilization is needed because of the bar positioning

Mark does not have his books and articles in quotations on the internet.Only fragments, like what you found. You will actually have to read them yourself, by buying his books and subscribing to crossfit or joining his forum and posting a new thread. Which I will just to post his response. lol and way to plagerise a post on T-nation word for word.
I know what he will say though from what he has mentioned in threads before.

Mark does not have his books and articles in quotations on the internet.Only fragments, like what you found. You will actually have to read them yourself, by buying his books and subscribing to crossfit or joining his forum and posting a new thread. Which I will just to post his response. lol and way to plagerise a post on T-nation word for word.
I know what he will say though from what he has mentioned in threads before.

I have bought and read Mark's book. I am aware of what is written in his book. And no it's not "plagiarism" to post something when you can't provide a link.

I think we are missing the purpose of my statement. He has back pain from doing squats. We all pretty much agree universally that it is most likely from poor form. My suggestion for him to switch to front squats has a couple points to it. It will force him to follow a more proper form. There is a good chance that he is using his back to leverage the weight up, as in leaning too far forward and using his back while coming up rather than keep his spine inline and using his hams/glutes and driving his hips forward to lift the weight. With the front squat you have less room for error like that. If you do, you'll lose the bar off the front. It will also allow him to keep squatting and give his back some rest, hopefully allowing it to recovery healthily. The front squat is a great tool to teach form with. However, we all probably agree that to only do front squats is not what is being said.

I disagree that front squats will teach better form for your back squats. Front squats have different mechanical advantages and disadvantages. Back squats are an exercise that focuses on hip extension (low back squats anyway).

If someone develops a strong front squat they will have the quads, but not the stabilizer maturity to develop significant carryover into the back squat anyway.

His best bet is doing bodyweight squats, focusing on shoving his knees out and reading a few tips from starting strength and watching Rippetoe demonstration videos.

The way you described the squat is how a proper low bar squat is performed.

We're in agreement that the problem is form. And I am not against incorporating front squats, just not replacing back squats for front squats.

Rippetoe goes into some detail on the subject on pages 223-230 of the 2nd Edition of starting strength.

Key points:

-Hamstrings are already shortened & the positioning of the bar makes it impossible to use hip drive as a cue.
-The body is kept as vertical as possible, in comparison to the back squat where some amount of forward lean is desired
-More core stabilization is needed because of the bar positioning

These words. I am a member of T-nation as well and just reread that thread yesterday and again today because of this lol.

You're going to tell him someone doesn't think front squats are a substitution for back squats and you actually think he's going to agree with that?

No where did I disagree with this statement anywhere. That would be stupid to pose a question even a novice could answer. The question posed is "a front squat is harder on a core than the back squat."

This question is multifaceted.As to the definition of 'harder" in perspective to the exercises themselves. FS IMO are harder in the fact of the weight pulling you forward and the body naturally working against it the whole exercise. While in the BS it is mainly supporting the heavy weight in general that strengthens the core that is from my own experience of doing heavy front and back squats and learning the geometry of the lifts themselves...but we will see what he has to say.

These words. I am a member of T-nation as well and just reread that thread yesterday and again today because of this lol.

No where did I disagree with this statement anywhere. That would be stupid to pose a question even a novice could answer. The question posed is "a front squat is harder on a core than the back squat."

This question is multifaceted.As to the definition of 'harder" in perspective to the exercises themselves. FS IMO are harder in the fact of the weight pulling you forward and the body naturally working against it the whole exercise. While in the BS it is mainly supporting the heavy weight in general that strengthens the core that is from my own experience of doing heavy front and back squats and learning the geometry of the lifts themselves...but we will see what he has to say.

What poundage are you comparing between the back squat and front squat? If you are comparing pound for pound a front squat vs. back squat, as in a front squat of 225 vs. a back squat of 225 then the front squat would of course recruit more core, but if you're comparing a 315 back squat with a 135 front squat (or whatever would be balanced between the two) then the back squat would seem to be harder on the core.

Lets not forget the core itself also consists of the lower back muscles, which contract harder with a back squat because the resistance being placed on the back.

My suggestion was simply that front squats are not a substitution for back squats and if you're not disagreeing with that then we are arguing over nothing.

What poundage are you comparing between the back squat and front squat? If you are comparing pound for pound a front squat vs. back squat, as in a front squat of 225 vs. a back squat of 225 then the front squat would of course recruit more core, but if you're comparing a 315 back squat with a 135 front squat (or whatever would be balanced between the two) then the back squat would seem to be harder on the core.

Lets not forget the core itself also consists of the lower back muscles, which contract harder with a back squat because the resistance being placed on the back.

My suggestion was simply that front squats are not a substitution for back squats and if you're not disagreeing with that then we are arguing over nothing.

No, I am not disagreeing with that last statement at all haha, and yes I meant using the same weight, using only the exercise as the medium. I also agree with the lower back part and the difference on weight on a trained individual. I think only focusing on one or the other would severely compromise someone.If I had to only do one I would probably do high bar squats as they seem the best of both worlds in functionality. As it stands I do low bar BS and FS. Maybe we all like training legs too much ja?:

No, I am not disagreeing with that last statement at all haha, and yes I meant using the same weight, using only the exercise as the medium. I also agree with the lower back part and the difference on weight on a trained individual. I think only focusing on one or the other would severely compromise someone.If I had to only do one I would probably do high bar squats as they seem the best of both worlds in functionality. As it stands I do low bar BS and FS. Maybe we all like training legs too much ja?:

If we're talking about the same weight then yes the front squat is harder using the same weight, but if you can front squat something you could back squat much more weight (if your legs have been trained properly).

I think we all just like training legs far too much; it is a good trait though.

I speak more of low back squats, but my style of squatting have always been high bar (Olympic squats) and I agree with you that they are more functional.

Not the same as zercher. Here is a vid, you can find many more just by typing in front squat to youtube. For arm placement some people hold them like in this video, others cross their arms almost like they are doing the universal sign for choking except their hands are not actually on their throat, but past it more towards the shoulders. You'll see it in the vids if you look them up.